The reliability of the victim's testimony and the absence of the need for corroboration in cases of sexual assault, as well as the interpretation of the provisions of IPC Sections 359 and 361.

B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. It is a classic case wherein an illiterate minor girl from an interior place in the State of Tripura was procured for the purpose of seducing her to illicit sexual Intercourse and ultimately sold the girl to a racket who engaged the girl for prostitution.

2. The prosecution story as could be revealed from the record is that the victim girl was first enticed by one Sankar Debnath from her native place Gouranga Till under Teliamura Police Station on 14-5-1993. Thereafter, the victim girl was taken to another place known as Tuchindrai. At this place, the present appellant, namely, Taru Das, joined the principal accused Sankar Debnath. Within moments of his introduction with the victim girl, the appellant-Taru Das expressed his desire to marry the girl. Having been persuaded for the marriage proposal, the victim girl was taken to Ambassa and finally to Silchar, a town in the State of Assam. The victim girl was allegedly handed over to one person at Silchar who again sold her to another person at Shillong in the State of Meghalaya. Finally, the victim girl landed in a brothel and by that time she was already pushed in the prostitution business.

3. While the victim girl was being pressurized to engage herself in the prostitution, somehow she fled away from the house and wrote a distress letter to her father, with the help of a person from his community. The English rendering of the contents of the letter go like this:

Respected father,

I am at Shillong. Address is given below. You come to this address soon and take me away. I am in much trouble here. If you be too late, they will sell me elsewhere. Moreover, the person who has kept me in captivity had sold me for rupees one thousand. For that reason, you come with rupees one thousand, or else, they will not hand me over to you. I am, secretly writing this letter in utter hurry (through) the hands of the other Bengalees. Father, do not be late. (I) am writing no more.

4. Having received the letter, the father of the victim woman lodged a written FIR at Tellamura Police Station. The FIR was registered as Tellamura P.S. Case No. 10(5)/1993, under Sections 366A/372read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (Briefly "IPC"). After extensive investigation, as many as 10 persons were challaned vide charge-sheet dated 7-2-1995. The list of the accused persons include Sankar Debnath who had first kidnapped the girl from her native place and all the persons who subsequently purchased the girl and engaged her in the prostitution business. Two accused persons were shown absconder in the charge-sheet itself. Unfortunately, except the present appellant, the remaining accused persons also absconded on being released on bail.

5. Although, as many as 23 persons were cited as witnesses in the charge-sheet but for some reasons the trial was concluded only after examining nine witnesses. The record shows that steps were taken to summon the remaining witnesses but the witnesses did not turn up. As transpires from the trend of cross-examination of the witnesses, the present appellant took a stance of total denial and no defence alibi was taken during the trial.

6. Having relied upon the prosecution evidence, the appellant has been convicted vide impugned judgment and order dated 4-7-2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai In Sessions Trial No. 55 (WT/K)/2001 under Section 366-A and 372, IPC. However, the accused/appellant has been acquitted from the charge under Section 376, IPC. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has sentenced the appellant to undergo RI for 10 years for the offence under Section366-A, IPC and similar sentence with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and further RI for 3 months as default stipulation has been imposed for the offence under Section 372, IPC. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred.

7. Heard Shri S. Kar Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri R.C. Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecu